Partly Cloudy and Breezy
77°
Crystal Lake, IL
Partly Cloudy and Breezy|Forecast »

Agendas must be clearer Jan. 1

Text Size: AaAaAaAaAa

Government watchdogs will get a belated stocking stuffer Tuesday when it comes to open meetings.

It could have been a full-fledged Christmas present had lawmakers not watered down the legislation’s original language.

House Bill 4687, which takes effect Jan. 1, somewhat strengthens the Illinois Open Meetings Act, requiring local government meeting agendas to set forth the “general subject matter” of any issue that will be up for a final vote. But just how strong the improvement ends up being may be up to the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

Bill sponsor Sandra Pihos, R-Glen Ellyn, called the bill a “step in the right direction” toward greater transparency when Gov. Pat Quinn signed it into law in July. She filed the bill in response to constituent complaints about meeting agendas that reveal little, if anything, about issues coming up for final votes.

The Northwest Herald in recent months has highlighted local meeting agendas that arguably fail to meet a minimum standard of informing the public.

An April 21 agenda for a special meeting of the McHenry County College Board of Trustees described a vote to spend $750,000 to buy land for future expansion as a “resolution to make offer.” An Aug. 30 special meeting of the Lakemoor Village Board described an impending vote dealing with liquor licenses as “an amendment to ordinance 10-O-22.”

In essence, House Bill 4687 allows citizens who believe an agenda item up for a vote is too vague to file a complaint with the attorney general’s Public Access Counselor, who has power to enforce open-government laws and can issue binding opinions to clear up ambiguities.

Given that “general subject matter” is open to interpretation – an ordinance number is descriptive to the government that wrote it but not most taxpayers – it likely will fall to a binding opinion to determine the minimum amount of description to pass legal muster.

The original version of Pihos’ bill required meeting agendas to be “sufficiently descriptive” to give the public “reasonable notice” of agenda items to be either discussed or voted upon. But the bill met with resistance from the Springfield lobbying groups representing many of Illinois’ 7,000 units of government.

Previous Page|1||

Reader Poll

Do you feel you are saving enough for retirement?

Yes
No
Already retired